Feedback for July 2003

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Comment:

Dear Friends
in debate. As a first time visitor, who is aware of the
differences having read Darwin and listened to many debates
[I am eighty years old retired electrician]. I find in
reading your "Welcome" you immediately poison the wells by
claiming and accusing those scientists who have won their
degrees, and hold the creationist position as being people
who indulge in pseudo science [pardon my spelling
[fixed. Ed]]. The fact of the matter is that the
Creationist and the evolution [non creation] both have one
thing in common, and that is that they are both belief
systems and should not be taught as science. One question
does your site hold to the convergent theory of evolution
or the divergent theory. regards From Fred the Scot!

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Response:

Holding a
degree does not exempt someone from criticism. It is quite
possible to hold a degree and indulge in pseudoscience.

Evolution is solidly science. People believe in
evolution, as they do in any other scientific model,
because it is supported by the evidence. Either you are
saying that we should not teach as science anything which
people actually believe [boggle] or else you
are unaware of the empirical basis for evolution. One of
the reasons this archive exists is to let lay persons like
you and I learn a bit about the actual basis for evolution.
Many files in the archive address this empirical basis. One
of my personal favourites is 29+
Evidences for Macroevolution.

I do not know what you mean by convergent theory or
divergent theory. There are plenty of examples of what is
known as evolutionary convergence; but by and large
the main effect of evolution is divergence of lineages over
time into many related species. Evolutionary convergence
occurs when two separate lineages converge on a fairly
similar external body plan. For example, dolphins and
sharks. The convergence is invariably superficial, in the
sense that the body structures and genetics show the same
basic pattern of divergence. Dolphins are genetically just
as far from sharks as tigers are from sharks. This is, by
the way, a powerful indication that the processes of
evolution are nothing like the processes of human
designers.

There is a brief discussion of
evolutionary convergence in the FAQ I listed above;
although the actual word convergence is not
used.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Comment:

In regard to
"Ron Wyatt's" claims: I studied his claims for now on 8
years, and those of the professional Archaeologist Jonathan
Gray, who confronted him on his claims, with a brief case
of complaints from other persons acquainted with Jonathan.s
work. Jonathan Gray came away 100% confirmed that Ron
Wyatt's claims were authentic. On I attend two of Ron
Wyatt's lectures. One in Palmerston North, Convention
Centre and One in Petone Boys High School. I also attended
two letures by Jonathan Gray in Palmerston North, then an
advocate of Ron's experiences and discoveries. I would also
point out independant Scientist have got together on thes e
claims and have visted the Red Sea Crossing to verify this
claim, and have declared the route Moses took with his
people has to be redrawn. As to this I supply my site in
which I have recorded this claim as from the news, to
ensure it is not wiped from the net as some other valuable
information has been. See:
Red.
It may take a few moments for the pictures to download. I
suggest you copy this news Item as syrngely biblical
evidence seems to go missing. Love, Peace and Goodwill..
Robert T. Porter

I would like
to add to J.E. Hill's response to Robert T. Porter that I
highly recommend that anyone persuaded by Ron Wyatt and
Jonathan Gray read the book _Holy Relics or Revelation:
Recent Astounding Archaeological Claims Evaluated_ by
Russell R. Standish and Colin D. Standish (1999, Hartland
Publications). This book examines the claims of Wyatt (and
Gray) in excruciating detail, and find that the claims are
unfounded and filled with fabrications and distortions. The
Standishes, like Wyatt, are Seventh-Day Adventists. This
book can be ordered from the
Hartland Publications website.

Ana,
scientists are doing their best. They educate people in
universities, write technical and popular books about it,
advise television producers (who, with rare exceptions,
tend to ignore their advice in favour of "drama" and
"whizbangery"), and when asked by journalists try their
very best to get relatively simple concepts past the
preconceptions of the media (unfortunately, also rarely
successfully).

As to your second question, it depends on what you are
interested in. Are we talking about human evolution here?
If so, one possible aspect of modern human evolution lies
in resistance to diseases - humans in industrial urbanised
societies are exposed to diseases way more than we were "in
the wild". The Black Death, for example, and sexually
transmitted diseases, have caused human genes to shift in
frequencies, and are still doing so.

If you mean evolution in general, then there are
considerable research projects ongoing. The work described
in Jonathon Weiner's book The beak of the finch is
one such. There are many others.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Comment:

"Scientific
creationism is 100% crap."

I just love the Archie Bunker finesse you use in
answering your critics. You guys have your own Bible that
you thump and you and the churches are just two warring
camps. I really don't care whether evolution or Martian
immigration is true--what is true is truth. I just am
amazed at how you think you use scientific method better
than a plumber measuring a pipe.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Response:

Many people
think that is an irresponsible attitude where our
childrens' education is concerned. Also, most people who
attend churches find no conflict between science and
religion- and that includes most scientists. However, we
are quite concerned about the encroachment of religion into
science classrooms in many parts of this country, and
around the world. That conflict is being driven by a small
group who happen to have a peculiar take on their
religion.

From:

Wesley R. Elsberry

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Response:

The reader's comment does go rather wide of the mark. My
church and I are not in "warring camps". As Chris notes,
SciCre is espoused by a small minority of Christian
believers who nonetheless have the sort of arrogant
attitude concerning their cult-like devotion to
extra-scriptural doctrine that Jack Speer ironically
imputes to scientists.

As for the finesse of the statement in question, I'd
like to hear about any non-crap component of "scientific
creationism". I have several board-feet of personal shelf
space devoted to antievolutionary literature, and I
certainly have not found such yet. The SciCre literature is
a pastiche of outright falsehoods ("evolution violates the
SLoT", the Lady Hope story, the Lucy's knee thing, etc.),
recycled arguments that often date back to the 19th century
(and which were disposed of then), and "borrowed" findings
taken from legitimate evolutionary biologists (with
completely misleading spin applied). If there is something
I've missed, please feel free to post it to the talk.origins newsgroup.

The comment about plumbers is a common fallacy in
considering science, for a practicing plumber is not
thereby a scientist, but rather a type of engineer. Jack's
business, as seen by examination of his website, is
concerned with a sort of social engineering (it is a
consulting firm, catering to businesses, with a mix of
personality tests and advice concerning personnel).

When I'm testing the hearing of odontocetes,
investigating the biosonar sound production of dolphins, or
examining the behavior of lekking greater prairie chickens,
yes, I am confident that I am applying the scientific
method. When I'm responding to the socio-political
commentary of antievolutionists, it is usually quite
unnecessary, as they bring so little of scientific import
to the discussion.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Comment:

Wow!

I came across this wonderful site quite by accident. I
have have spent far too much time already reading the
postings.

I hope that I do not come across as a smart axx, but the
whole argument about: was it made or did it just happen (us
and everything) leaves me cold. If either position is
proven true; I will be just as dumfounded by the
revelation! i.e.: what do I do now...Why has it always
been?.......why or where did the God(s) come
from?....Yikes!

Thank you
for your informative article on "God and Evolution." I
understand that a theory can be supported by forming and
testing hypotheses, however, what about questions for which
there are no empirical methods of investigation and
confirmation? My question is: What about spirit? Do not all
living things possess spirits? If the answer is yes, then
from where did spirits originate if not from God?
Additionally, on the topic of creation, if life were not
created, then why are living things referred to as
"creatures?"

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Response:

The "God and Evolution" essay does make that point that
many Christians have no difficulty with the idea that God
used evolutionary processes as His method of creation,
which handily resolves the issue about the origin of
spirit.

On the last question, I'll pose another in response: If
the native peoples of the North American continent are not
from an Asian sub-continent south of the Himalayas, then
why are they referred to as "Indians"? The answer to both
questions is that the names derive from accidents of
history, not insight into the actual origins of either.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Comment:

I've been in
a few debates with creationist. When i show them,
transitional species of horses. They reply, that much like
dogs, they probably vary drastically in size and are just
lined up to produce a transitional line. I am wondering how
archeoligist find out if a fossil is of the same species or
of close relative.

Well, as you
might expect, it isn't easy. Typically, one needs a number
of fossils to get some estimate of what the range of
variation was, and then estimate if that range matches the
sort of range in similar organisms alive today. This isn't
always, or even often, possible, but it can be done if the
fossil record is complete enough. Here is one article that
argues that it can be done:

It is easy to claim that the fossil record says nothing
about speciation because the biological species concept
(which relies on interbreeding) cannot be applied to it and
genetic studies cannot be carried out on it. However,
fossilized organisms are often preserved in sufficient
abundance for populations of intergrading morphs to be
recognized, which, by analogy with modern populations, are
probably biological species. Moreover, the fossil record is
our only reliable documentation of the sequence of past
events over long time intervals: the processes of
speciation are generally too slow to be observed directly,
and permanent reproductive isolation can only be verified
with hindsight. Recent work has shown that some parts of
the fossil record are astonishingly complete and well
documented, and patterns of lineage splitting can be
examined in detail. Marine plankton appear to show gradual
speciation, with subsequent morphological differentiation
of lineages taking up to 500 000 years to occur. Marine
invertebrates and vertebrates more commonly show punctuated
patterns, with periods of rapid speciation followed by
long-term stasis of species lineages.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Comment:

Did our
first ancestor realise that it needed to evolve? I guess
I'm asking who or what told it that it needed to evolve
into something else? Why wasn't it satisfied to remain as
it was? Would it be evidence of an ego? Why haven't we
evolved any better than we have? Like, why didn't we retain
some of our reptilian limb regenerating capabilities?

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Response:

Evolution is
something that happens spontaneously and inevitably in any
population of imperfectly reproducing entities.
Satisfaction or desire does not come into it; so it is not
evidence of ego.

Also, evolution is not something that happens to an
individual anyway. It is about differences from one
individual to the next. You, for example, certainly have a
significant number of mutations difference from your
parents. There is nothing you or you parents could have
done to prevent this.

Also, we don't really have a distinguishable
first ancestor; but rather a chain of many
ancestors.

Also, evolution does not have foresight to plan the best
of all outcomes. And for any living organism, there are
trade offs. Changes that are beneficial in one context may
be detrimental in another; and even detrimental changes can
become fixed in a population. Adaptations which are not
used are frequently lost over time. An example is blind
cave fish, for whom eyes no longer have any immediate
advantage. As a result, mutations which degrade their
function are not eliminated by selection, and over time the
function of sight is lost. It may have been the same with
limb regeneration. For creatures like ourselves, loss of a
limb is so devastating that we are likely to die anyway
before a limb has time to regenerate; and so perhaps the
capacity for regeneration was lost due to lack of selective
pressures to keep it. Or perhaps some other changes in
skeletal structure had the side effect of degrading
regeneration capacity. But fundamentally, we really don't
know the why of such things.

I found
Douglas Theobald's '29 Evidences for macroevolution'
well-organised, thoughtful and succinct. That animals close
to one another on the phylogenetic tree should hold common
relics of retroviruses in their genomes is a remarkable
evidence for relatedness, not least because the retroviral
DNA was originally exogenous. Any rebuttal of this evidence
implies a strange sort of Creator - a tinkerer who added
meaningless material to the genome of each species.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Comment:

You should
be ashamed of yourselfs for dragging people down with your
guesses of evolution. Use math to figure out the process of
the eye ball and how many attempts to just get the eye ball
correct.This would take far beyond when you say the earth
came about..... I feel what you do is try to confuse the
masses into believing your ideas so you can be put on a
pedistal. In the end you still would have to come up with
some type of creator to start the process you believe. Just
let go and appreciate what we have been given.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Response:

The first
attempt of which I am aware to use mathematics in the
estimation of how much time it would take to form an
eyeball is the following paper from 1994:

A pessimistic estimate of the time required
for an eye to evolve.
by Nilsson DE, and Pelger S
Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 1994 Apr
22;256(1345):53-58

The abstract is as follows:

Theoretical considerations of eye design allow
us to find routes along which the optical structures of
eyes may have evolved. If selection constantly favours an
increase in the amount of detectable spatial information, a
light-sensitive patch will gradually turn into a focused
lens eye through continuous small improvements of design.
An upper limit for the number of generations required for
the complete transformation can be calculated with a
minimum of assumptions. Even with a consistently
pessimistic approach the time required becomes amazingly
short: only a few hundred thousand years.

Professor Nilsson has
continued this line of investigation within the Vision
Group at the University of Lund, Sweden.

I am not aware of any mathematical basis at all for a
claim that it would take more than the age of the Earth to
evolve an eyeball. Claims for enormous amounts of time, or
infinitesimal probability, are usually made without any
mathematical model to justify the claim; or else they are
sometimes made simply by multiplying together many numbers
to get small probabilities; a technique which is
meaningless because it does not even attempt to model the
effects of evolution. The essential feature of evolution
which is always omitted in such bogus calculations is the
effect of cumulative selection.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Comment:

The page,
"The Creation Research Society's Creed," by Brett Vickers,
states,

"The Creation Research Society, established to promote
and fund 'scientific' creation research, publishes a
journal called the Creation Research Society Quarterly. It
is one of the only journals (that I know of) where
creationists are able or have even tried to publish their
work.... The society and journal require that all members
adhere to the following statement of belief....

"As far as I know, no mainstream scientific journal
requires its authors to sign a statement of belief. One
wonders why creationist journals do."

In the first place, if this journal is "one of the only"
the author knows, why does he use the plural in his last
sentence (...why creationist journals do)? He only knows of
one Creationist journal!

Secondly, the Creation Research Society Quarterly
clearly states that MEMBERS (in the society) must sign the
creed. There is nothing that states that someone has to be
a member, sign the creed, or even agree with the creed, to
be published in the Journal.

Third, there is nothing unusual about requiring
perspective members in a society (any society) to adhere to
a creed.

Finally, what I have stated is not a secret. I mentioned
this to T.O. several years ago. Yet, T.O. persists in
publishing misleading information.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Response:

Your
critique of the turn of phrase "one of the only" is noted.

I believe you are correct that anyone may submit an
article to CRSQ. I recently perused the online contents of
the CRSQ, though, and every author mentioned was a member.
This is not meant to be definitive, but indicative.

Finally, there is something odd about a
professional society requiring members to accept a creed.
There is nothing odd about a religious society doing so,
though. That's why "creation science" doesn't exist.

Apparently Loyola no longer carries this. [3] Steve
Levikoff, Name It and Frame It? New Opportunities in Adult
Education and How to Avoid Being Ripped Off by 'Christian'
Degree Mills, 4th ed. (1995), available at http://training.loyola.edu/cdld/nifi.html,
last accessed on June 24, 1998.

I was
flipping channels the other day and landed pm Trinity
Broadcasting and they were running a special on these
Acambaro Dinosaurs. They claimed evolution was dead on the
spot, which of course I didn't exactly think made sense.
What is the deal with all these dinosaur figurines? The
creationist exhibiting them was Dr. Dennis Swift, btw.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Response:

The "deal"
with the Acambaro figurines is largely smoke and mirrors on
the part of Young Earth creationists that lack any actual
substance. The topic of the Acambaro figurines is
unfortunately one for which a Talk.Origins Archive FAQ
should be made, but doesn't yet exist.

First, even evangelical Christians are dismissive of
these figures as being real prehistoric artifacts and valid
evidence of the co-existence of dinosaurs and man. This
skepticism is discussed in detail by David Mathews in his
Weekly column of May 27, 2000 that is titled
"Domesticated Dinosaurs?"

"Don Patton's reliance upon doubtful evidences and
arguments is sufficient cause to doubt anything that he
says as a scientist, an interpreter of science, and an
archeologist. Because the presence of numerous scientific
errors in Don Patton's materials, I advise Christians to
reject his teachings wholesale or accept them only after
intense skeptical scientific investigation."

Finally, until a Talk.Origins FAQ is written, a
peer-reviewed paper that has much to say about these
figurines is:

1. "Further, none of the specimens were marred by
patinantion nor did they possess the surface coating of
soluble salts characteristic of objects of more certain
antiquity coming from same area. Upon the word of the owner
none of the figure had been washed in acid. Examination
showed the edges of the depressions forming eyes, mouths,
or scales to be sharp and new. No dirt was packed into any
of the crevices."

2."In the entire collection of 32,000 specimens no
shovel, mattock, or pick marks were noted." .... "Their
field technique when witnessed on the site, however
indicated that they were neither careful nor
experienced."

(De Peso refers to the expertise in excavating artifacts
of the farmers who claimed to dug up the Acambaro
figurines. Given their lack of expertise, it is remarkable
that they could have excavated such fragile artifacts
without any obvious shovel, mattock, or pick damage.)

3. "The author spent two days watching the excavators
burrow and dig; during the course of their search they
managed to break a number of authentic prehistoric objects.
On the second day the two struck a cache and the author
examined the material in situ. The cache had been very
recently buried by digging a down sloping tunnel into the
black fill dirt of the prehistoric room. This fill ran to a
depth of approximately 1.30 m. Within the stratum there
were authentic Tarascan sherds, obsidian blades, tripod
metates, manos, etc., but these objects held no concern for
the excavators. In burying the cache of figurines, the
natives had unwittingly cut some 15 cms. below the black
fill into the sterile red earth floor of the prehistoric
room. In back-filling the tunnel they mixed this red
sterile earth with black earth; the tracing of their
original excavation was, as a result, a simple task."

The above and other observations made in this paper
provides a distinct impression that the figurines are
nothing more than modern folk art made by people, who
pretended to find them, as a means of earning a living by
selling them to Mr. Waldemar Julsrud, a local and wealthy
merchant, as actual ancient artifacts. The 12 pesos a
figurine that Waldemar Julsrud paid for these objects was a
substantial amount of money to the poverty stricken
subsistence famers at the time the artifacts were
purchased. Given that Mr. Julsrud reportively bought 33,000
of them, the farmers who sold them to him made many times
over what they could have earned by simply farming the
land. Dr. Hapood, who in the eyes of the local farmers was
a wealthy American, would have also been regarded as a
potential meal ticket like Mr. Julsrud. Thus, they would
have obliged Dr. Hapgood, who lack the experience and the
critical eyes of an archaeologist like De Peso, interest in
the Acambaro figurines with similar merchandise.

De Peso, as described above, established that the
figures came from within the rooms of a single component
Tarascan ruin. The Tarascan are, in fact a Post-Classic and
historic tribe as noted at:
Tarascan

Thus, a person is left with the big problem of where
there is evidence of dinosaurs within that part of Mexico
at anytime during the last 1100 years, which was the time
that the site was occupied and archaeological deposits
alleged to contain the Acambaro figurines accumulated. The
deposits from which Acambaro figurines are suppose to have
come are thousands of years younger than the dates reported
by Don Patten and other Young Earth creationists, who are
promoting the authenticity of the Acambaro figurines.

As far as thermoluminescence (TL) dates are concerned,
Don Patten and "Dr." Dennis Swift, at their web site
actually admit that the people who conducted the TL dating
"...asserted that the ceramics gave off regenerated light
signals and could be no more than 30 years old." Then they
dismiss this unpleasant fact by using a standard assertion
of alternative archaeologists and Young Earth creationists
that the people at University of Pennsylvania are just
lying thought their teeth in order to suppress the "true"
age of the Acambaro figurines. Don Patton and Dennis Swift
similarly respond to the observations of De Peso by
attacking his character.

[NOTE: Don Patton, who together with Dennis Swift
strongly supports the authenticity of the Acambaro
figurines, is also a strong advocate for the validity of
the Malachite
Man, a Japanese
plesiosaur, Paluxy
"Man Tracks", and many other alleged anomalous
evidence.]

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Comment:

In the June
2003 feedback, K Smith argued we cannot consider something
a fact unless it can be observed directly. In addition to
the TO response, I would like to add that the same
principles of inference and deduction that serve police
detective so well also serves the natural scientist. There
need not be a witness or videotape of a crime for the
police to determine the guilty party. Careful examination
of the physical clues left at the crime scene often leads
to a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Response:

Talk.origins
is completely straightforward about being a proponent of
the mainstream position on evolution. The authors of
articles that refer to creationist documents always extend
the courtesy of providing links to those that are online,
and extensive references when they are not. Creationist
positions are also welcome in Feedback, and in the Usenet
newsgroup talk.origins .

Finally, should an article espousing the creationist
viewpoint appear that is sufficiently rigorous, I have no
doubt it will take it's place on the site.

In Laurence
Moran's article "What is Evolution", he discusses the
confusion about the definitions of evolution. He claims
that the public doesn't have a good idea as to what
evolution really is. My question/comment is: what are
scientists, researchers, and teachers doing to educate the
public and stop the debate between religion and
evolution?

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Comment:

Thank you
for providing such a comprehensive site, often I find it
useful when arguing with zealous creationists. However, I
recently was stumped when one such person sent an article
to me about how the Mt. Saint Helens eruption suppports the
idea of an early earth. I scoured the internet for someone
who addressed this issue and found none. I did find some
informaiton on coal bed formation and Spirit Lake, but
nothing on Steve Austin's idea that rapid erosion at Mt.
Saint Helens proves creationists are right. Usually I have
no problem debated these people, but this one threw me for
a loop because i don't know much about erosion on a short
time scale vs a long time scale. Perhaps this could be
addressed as a new addition to the Merrit FAQs!

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Response:

The article
you read is based on Steve Austin's work for the Institute for Creation
Research, in which he claims that the Grand Canyon
could have been laid down by a global flood. Unfortunately,
many features seen in the Grand Canyon cannot be explained
by this idea. One short answer to your correspondent is
that the "canyon" seen at Mt. St. Helens was carved in ash,
not rock as forms the Grand Canyon. Water obviously affects
ash differently (and more quickly) than it does rock.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Response:

It's a big putrid pile of rotting whale blubber.

You know, this isn't the kind of thing where the opinion
of a bunch of scientists (or journalists) matters. Samples
were analyzed, and they came back with an inarguable
result: it's a dead mammal. Or at least, nasty bits of a
dead mammal.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Comment:

Evolution
fossil interpretation seems to rely on post hoc,ergo
propter hoc. Basically, because we have this fossil that
looks sort of like a whale found in rock we like to think
is this old, this fossil must be the ancestor of the modern
whale. I really don't see how you can conclusively connect
the two events. This is evidence, not proof, right?

Your web site is thorough, and, I thought, honest in its
intent. Every argument for evolution is collected here; I
was impressed.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Response:

When fossils
are as dissimilar as you suggest, most biologists are as
surprised as you when an unexpected line of descent is
proposed. However, the fact is that many fossils exhibit
particular traits that are dead giveaways to those trained
to look for them. This is no different than any other
field: the more training and experience someone has, the
better she will be able to discern these features. In the
case of the whale fossils you mention, I assume you are
referring to the theory that they are descended from hoofed
mammals. In fact, the fossil remains of Ambulocetus
and Pakicetus, and others, are a striking mix of
characters from the two groups. The evidence for the
current theory is overwhelming:

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Comment:

I recently
read an article that attempted to define evolution theory.
I would disagree with the definition as it does not take
into account the new theory (which really contradicts
Darwin's theory) of an RNA world. The new evolution theory
is purporting that prior to the separate and established
lineages which DNA-based organisms represent, there was a
much more maleable, and formable RNA world. They use this
theory to explain the lack of transitional fossils as well
as the lack of macroevolution possibility as shown by
statistical and experimental results with RNA. In order to
incorporate both thoeries the new definition should be
*evolution= change/origin that takes lots of time, by
uniformitarian process, and without the necessity of a
Creator. Subsequently, *creationism= origin that takes
little/no time (a Genesis 'day'), by
nonuniformitarian/supernatural process, with the necessity
of a creator. At least these are the definitions that I cam
up with after lots of discussion, and I am interested in
feedback about them.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Response:

The RNA
world hypothesis is about one stage in the development of
life, prior to the origins of cells as we know them now.
Basically, it is proposed that the first replicators may
have been based on RNA, rather than DNA. However, this
hypothetical case would be long before any fossils. It has
nothing to do with any supposed lack of transitional
fossils or any problems with macroevolution. Modern
evolutionary theory is completely unchanged; as it deals
with the diversification of life and not its origin.

Your definition is incorrect for several reasons. It
includes the ill defined notion of uniformatarianism; but
real evolutionary theory involves recognition that rates of
evolution are not uniform, and recognizes that catastrophes
(like the bolide impact that finished off the dinosaurs)
have an enormous effect on the course of evolution. Your
definition speaks of a lack of necessity for a creator,
which is a theological question beyond the scope of any
scientific model. Evolutionary biology is quite consistent
with the metaphysical notion of necessity for a
creator.

The RNA world includes the basic ideas of Darwinian
evolution; but applies them for a different hypothetical
kind of replicator. It has been a very fruitful model in
biogenesis proposals. For more information, see:

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Response:

Yes. Part of
what makes HIV/AIDS so difficult to combat is that (1) HIV
infects and disables helper T cells, which mobilize the
body's defenses against infection, and (2) HIV rapidly
mutates, thereby escaping a person's ability to fight it
off. A person who has HIV/AIDS may have several strains of
the virus in their body at the same time, in fact.

There is
apparently a creationist argument against an old Earth that
is based upon the so-called "Lost Squadron"--a group of
combat airplanes that were abandoned in Greenland during
WWII and are now trapped under approximately 268 feet of
ice. I don't know the details of the argument. I would be
interested in reading the argument and its refutation. Can
you point me to a source or sources?

The typical
Young Earth argument involving the Lost Squadron argues
that ice core dating cannot be a valid because ice in
Greenland accumulates too fast for wafer-thin layers found
in ice cores to be annual layers. As evidence that the ice
in Greenland accumulates too fast for ice core dating to be
a valid method, Young Earth creationists, i.e. Larry
Vardiman, cite the example of the Lost
Squadron. It was a squadron of six P-38 fighters and
two B-17 bombers that landed and were abandoned on the
Greenland Ice Cap. In 48 years, they were buried under 263
feet of ice. This is a rate of snow accumulation of about
5.5 feet per year if subsequent compaction is ignored.

In this case, Young Earth creationists failed to
understand that the rate at which snow accumulates within
Greenland varies greatly across its ice cap. At the
location where the Lost Squadron landed near the coast of
Greenland, the rate of snow accumulation is considerably
greater than the rate of snow accumulation within the
interior of the Greenland Ice Cap where the ice cores have
been collected. Inland from the Greenland coast, the
average annual snowfall decreases dramatically to rates
consistent with those calculated from the ice cores.
Because of the difference in rate of snow accumulation, the
use of the depth of burial of the Lost Squadron" as an
argument against the usefulness of ice core dating lacks
any scientific validity. It is like using rainfall records
in Syndey, Australia to predict the rate at which a pond in
Alice Springs, Australia would fill. In addition, the Lost
Squadron landed on an actively moving area of the Greenland
Ice Cap, quite unlike the areas in which ice cores are
collected which are stable and motionless realtive to
it.

As noted by Matt Brinkman is his 1995 article "Ice
core dating", the close agreement of different methods
used to determine ages from ice cores, including ash and
chemicals generated by volcanic eruptions at known dates,
have demonstrated the validity of ice core dating.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Comment:

Creation or
Evolution?

Christian intractability in the area of evolution has
produced an honest class of atheistic scientists from which
the human community still suffers. Not all scientists are
atheistic, of course. Many see no conflict with
evolutionary science and the Bible's allegorical
explanations of creation. The issue doesn't need to be
divisive at all. Some scientists believe that both accounts
of creation-the seven-day creation account and the
elongated evolutionary account-could be "correct."
Scientifically, it is known that the faster a moving body
moves, the slower time moves. For example, a seven light
year journey from earth to Alpha Centauri and back would be
a fourteen-year trip in all. During the fourteen-year trip,
earth would have aged one hundred and fifty years! Time is
now known to vary in relationship to speed.

Add to this, the "Big Bang" theory of creation, with its
premise of an unimaginably rapid expansion of matter. Might
a given set point, say "earth" not experience a much
shorter length of time? Possibly, according to one
scientist, seven days in length?

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Response:

You are
mixing up "allegorical" (or more generally, mythical and
symbolic) explanation with scientific resolutions. Many
Christians do not see a conflict because they recognize
that Genesis is not a literal account, in any frame
of reference. Genesis uses the cosmological models of the
time to address matters of the nature of God and of
humanity. It bears no relation of any kind to scientific
models; they are just not about the same thing (in my
opinion).

Proposing an alternative reference frame does not
resolve anything, because the events used in the biblical
account refer to the cosmology of ancient Mesopotamia. Some
events have no correspondence to modern cosmology (the
division of watery chaos into sky and sea) and some events
are in the wrong order (Sun, Moon and stars created after
plants) and some events turn out not to be at a particular
time (plants created on the third day; but the plants named
include grains and flowering plants, which only arose
fairly recently, since the demise of the dinosaurs).

To try and fit this to modern cosmology is futile, and
it definitely obscures all the lessons intended by the
biblical writer.

As a minor detail, Alpha Centauri is actually 4.35 light
years away, and the number of years shipbound elapsed time
for a star voyage could be hypothetically any number you
like depending on the velocity.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Comment:

Evolution
has occured by your defintion, this much I conceed. Yet, I
do not believe man and ape have common ancestry. Nor am I
willing to give up a concept that includes a young Earth. I
must admit this position is not attainable through strictly
empirical means, but it requires belief in Divine
revelation. Also, your position is completely intuitive,
while my position is deductive. I guess the return of
Christ will have to settle this one.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Response:

I think that we must have differing definitions for
"intuitive" and "deductive". Also, holding to a "young
earth" concept doesn't just mean that one can't verify it
by reference to empirical data; it means that one
must be willing to discard vast quantities of
empirical data (and whole fields of science) that otherwise
would falsify that view.

Have you considered the possiblity that Christ, when He
returns, will tell you that common descent is true?

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Comment:

For the
record, I am a Christian who accepts as accurate science
all major aspects of evolution, and in fact have taught it
to 15 years of high school biology students. Persons such
as myself have, I expect, an ongoing internal discussion
between their Christian faith and their scientific
intellect. I love your site, for it is an incredible trove
of trivia and intelligent, funny discourse. I do, however,
have one complaint. Whenever you drift into personal
interpretations of Bible passages, you have moved into the
arena of thought - religious belief - that is expressly non
scientific. Not that such religious thought is unimportant
(it is immensely important to many of your readers), its
just not scientific. When you do venture in, sometimes by
being baited in by a creationist ("Give me one bible claim
that can be disproven", for example), you run the risk of
unnecessarily confusing your readers, by muddling 2 realms
of thought, and 2 separate searches for truth. When I read
your comments on the Bible, I inwardly start proposing a
religious answer to your religious assertion. I feel this
diminishes your website's effectiveness. It is just as
wrong for some of your harsher critics to launch ad hominem
attacks on your own personal morality. If your goal is to
uphold good science, and to debunk bad science, I would
suggest that these adventures into religion are unwise and
unhelpful. Creationists offer you enough opportunities for
scientific discussion, without you heedlessly moving into a
realm of thought that does not have to adhere to scientific
standards. Comments?

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Response:

I agree in part with Tom's sentiments. But the issue is
not one of who has the better scientific argument; that was
settled over a century ago. The antievolution movement is
driven primarily by religious and political motivations. As
such, the controversy is sociological and political in
nature, not scientific.

Speaking for myself, I do think that discussion of the
scientific issues should be kept delineated from the
sociological, political, and religious issues. But I also
feel that it is important that these other dimensions of
the discussion be addressed.

I think it would be helpful if the objections could be
made specific. If there is an article or articles on the
archive which delve into religious issues without being
clear about distinguishing that from discussion of the
science, I'm sure that the author(s) of the article(s) in
question would be amenable to making improvements in
clarity. If, though, we are talking about feedback items
and responses, I don't know that there is much to do about
it other than reiterate clarity on the distinctions as
something to be desired.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Comment:

How does
entropy enter into evolution? Why are not the complex
systems breaking down due to entropic pressures? If a
system as complex as the human body 'evolved',then where in
the heck is my Corvette tree?

Complex
systems are breaking down due to entropic pressures.
Some of their breakdown fuels the building up of other
complex systems. In other words, you will die if you don't
eat.

The Corvette tree (actually a plant) is in Bowling
Green, Kentucky. As is normal for intelligent design, the
plant was not designed to reproduce itself. Part of the
reason for this is that a normal goal of intelligent design
is to keep things as simple as possible, not to make things
complex.

From:

Kenneth Fair

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Response:

Check out
the National Corvette
Museum for more information on Corvettes, including the
50th anniversary of the Corvette, pictures of the plant,
and plant tours. You can even get a Corvette
screensaver!

So what was this all about anyhow? I take possibilities
seriously, but sometimes I suspect something serious has
been altered, left out, or otherwise outright lied about by
Creationists almost as a rule. You don't need to post this
one up if you don't like, just an e-mail response would be
fine.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Response:

The page
from Answers in Genesis is an open letter from Storrs
Olson to Peter Raven;
and it is given without any claim by Answer in Genesis to
endorse any views. Alas, it is also given without any
background or links which would help explain what it is
about. Olson is Curator of Birds at the Smithsonian
National Museum of Natural History; and Raven is Chairman
of the National Geographic Society's Committee for Research
and Exploration.

The letter concerns the notorious National Geographic
issue of November 1999, which reported prematurely on
Archaeoraptor liaoningensis, which was almost
immediately revealed to be a chimera; a fossil constructed
by joining together two other fossils. Olson's letter was
sent before the chimera was revealed, which makes his
closing remarks quite prophetic; it also means that the
letter omits a lot of subsequent detail, which Answers in
Genesis does also consider in other pages.

In brief, National Geographic was badly caught out and
hugely embarrassed. The fossil itself (or rather, the two
fossils!) remains an exceptionally valuable discovery, part
of a series of dramatic transitional fossils from China in
recent years which have confirmed the evolutionary link
between birds and theropod dinosaurs. Olson is one of the
few holdouts against this idea, and he considers the
Archaeoraptor liaoningensis fiasco to be symptomatic
of a deeper problem in the field. Legitimate scientists
like Olson acting as critics of the dominant paradigms are
an essential part of the ferment of science. However, they
have nothing in common with creationism or the Answers in
Genesis perspective.

That is why Answers in Genesis makes clear that they are
not endorsing the views of Olson more generally.

I am a
public school teacher and creationist. Interesting web
site! A few comments: Using the word "pseudo-science" is
the tactic of name calling. "Curious and unbiased", surely
you jest, everyone is biased in some way or they wouldn't
be reading your website. And, just because theories of
origins are commonly accepted doesn't make them
scientifically accurate. Now do you need me to quote
ancient scientific theories that were cutting edge at the
time and are now considered ridiculous? The same might be
true of some of your "science"......

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Response:

Using the word "pseudoscience" for things that are
pseudoscience is not "name-calling". The proper term is
"classification".

Our bias for mainstream science is clearly laid out in
our Welcome page.

Popularity indeed says nothing about correctness of
concepts. We prefer theories that have been tested and have
survived those tests. Yes, theories have been proposed
which failed certain tests (the class includes "phlogiston"
theory and bathmism). Yes, theories have been proposed
which now are subsumed within other theories (Newton's
conception of the physics of motion being a example, as it
describes non-relativistic phenomena adequately). Rather
than hold out the bare possibility that something we
mention here on the archive could be found to be wrong or
perhaps not the whole picture, why not be specific and
point out something that fails to accord with the available
evidence? References would help tremendously.

Wesley

From:

J.E. Hill

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Response:

I certainly
respect your right to believe what you do, but sincerely
hope you check your religious convictions and personal
beliefs (including creationism) at the public school house
door. As a long term school board member I would be greatly
disappointed to find a teacher promoting their religious
views to a class of students.

From:

Kenneth Fair

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Comment:

In your
Q&A you have a question about the chance of a cell
coming into being by means of natural processes. Your
answer to this question is that the cell is thought to have
evoled from a primitive precursor.

What is a "primitive precursor"?

And if you can, please explain to me in percise
technical detail this evolutionary process. But before
that, please prove to me that the cell is not a irreducibly
complex unit.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Response:

I know that
this question is presuming a certain kind of inability to
reply, but it raises, almost by accident, some interesting
issues.

"Primitive", in evolutionary biology, means something
different from what it means in ordinary conversation. For
a long time, western thinking has treated anything
different to the western way of thinking as "primitive",
meaning less developed than western thinking. This
isn't what it means in biology.

In evolution, a trait is primitive if it is something
that the ancestor of modified descendent had. Hence, having
four limbs is primitive for snakes, who now have none.
Having no legs is "derived" for snakes.

What is a primitive precursor to modern cells? Any cell
that had traits we can reasonably assume were ancestral to
all modern cells, but which modern cells do not have or
which are not changed. For instance, it is very likely
primitive cells had lipid cell membranes (comprised of
fatty acids which spontaneously form into cell-like
structures, called "vescicles") because all cells have
them. However, plant cells also have a cellulose cell wall.
Since this is unique to plants, and there is no evidence it
was lost in other branches of the tree of life, this is a
"derived" (sometimes referred to as a "modern") trait.

Likewise other mechanisms or structures of modern cells.
The primitive cell lacked a nucleus, organelles, and
probably had no actin cytoskeleton. It was considerably
less complex because it hadn't yet incorporated cells to
form organelles. DNA is universal to cells, so the last
common ancestor probably used DNA as its genetic code and
used an "alphabet" close to the universal one today.

Before that it gets hard to estimate the structures of
primitive cells. This is because in evolution we can only
work out the past if there is a good system of heredity
that retains the relevant information, and since that was
evolving at the very beginning, we have to work from the
principles of chemistry, which do not narrow down the range
of possibilities. Still, this work is being done. Here is a
link to get you started:

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Response:

You forgot the punchline.

The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."The Wise Man Says it to the World.

However, your comment is misplaced. This is not an
atheist site, and the TalkOrigins archive does not take a
specific stand on the existence of any gods. While some of
us volunteers (such as myself!) may be atheists, other
contributors are christian or followers of other
religions.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Comment:

YEC's
consistently claim that evolution could not have occurred
with entropy increasing. I will be the first to admit that
I know very little about science or thermodynamics. I was
raised in the bible-belt south and wasn't taught science.
However, if entropy is increasing, and hasn't reached "heat
death", wouldn't that mean there is still a lot of
available energy to drive evolution? I mean, if you still
have gas in the car's tank and it is decreasing as you
drive I-20 heading west, you still have available energy to
drive your car as long as there is gas in the tank, do you
not? Wouldn't the same apply to entropy? Even though it is
increasing, there is still so much available energy in the
universe that it shouldn't matter if entropy is increasing,
as long as there is still "gas in the tank" to drive
evolution. The fact there is entropy proves there is
something USING energy and that something could very well
be the force that drives evolution, could it not? I would
be very interested if you could clear this up for me. Thank
you so much.

It seems
that YECs have conflated thermodynamic entropy with "order"
and "information". Of course if the universe has not
reached maximum entropy, there is free energy to do work,
including allowing life to continue. However the
creationist canard is that this means things cannot become
more organised than they already are, in defiance of all
known physics...

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Comment:

First, I am
very impressed with your site. It's incredibly informative
and ignites one's mind to question, to think.

When examining a timeline from the rise of the dinosaurs
(about 250/220 MYA) to their extinction (65 MYA) we have a
maximum of 180MY that pass. Comparing that to the first
hominid (Australopithecines) arriving around 3MYA to
current Homo Sapien Sapien, only 3MY pass. Why is it
dinosaurs (as an example) seemingly evolved over a longer
period of time compared to the relatively short span of
time of man? Or do I need to specify a dinosaur?

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Response:

We know of
hundreds of species of dinosaur. It is likely therefore
that given the probable thousands we do not know of, or
perhaps hundreds of thousands given the paucity of the
fossilisation process in preserving species, that they had
much the same length of species "life" that modern
organisms do. The term "dinosaur" is about as useful as the
term "bird" in narrowing down the diversity of the group.
Less, in fact, given that birds are a subgroup of the
dinosaur clade.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Comment:

Re brain of
Archaeopteryx, errors have persisted in the literature. I
published a short note on these (Jerison, H. J. 1968. Brain
evolution and Archaeopteryx. Nature (London) 219:1381
1382)and included the information in my book (Evolution of
the Brain and Intelligence, New York, Academic Press,
1973). For reasons understandable to sociologists of
science, my views were not accepted until the publication:
Whetsone, K.N. 1983. Braincase of Mesozoic birds: I. New
preparation of the "London" Archaeopteryx. J. Vertebrate
Paleontology 2:439-452. The "new preparation" proved my
analysis to be correct. The error persists, however,in some
texts, and certainly on your WEB site. You cite Whetstone
but may not have read it carefully. The Archaeopteryx brain
was probably in the size range of that of living birds. No
dinosaur endocasts have proven to be in this size range,
although claims have been made for that. I review the
problem in my forthcoming article on "Dinosaur Brains" for
the 3rd (Internet) edition of the Encyclopedia of
Neuroscience. The Archaeopteryx brain is not quite avian,
however, lacking a Wulst, a characteristic feature of the
brain in living birds. It is, however, not reptilian
either, in that its whole brain filled its endocranial
cavity, which never happens in living reptiles or fossil
endocranial casts of dinosaurs or their contemporaries. (An
exception may be very young or very small specimens,
including some fish.) Although the reports on "large
brained" dinosaurs may be cited as a counter-view, the
reports are probably incorrect, a I have determined from
quantitative reanalysis of the data on Troodon available to
me. Archaeopteryx is, in sum, a fine "missing link" for
brain evolution, dinosaurian in most skeletal features, but
intermediate or avian in the evidence of the brain. The
present consensus on the dinosaurian link to living birds
is undoubtedly acceptable for reasons having little to do
with the brain.

As for your final question, I think that creationists do
not know that their arguments have been disproven. In some
cases this is simply a failure to understand or accept the
disproofs; but it is also common for old arguments to recur
for decades simply because people really just do not know
that they are disproven. A great example can be seen in
last month's feedback, where the old urban legend about
Nasa computers and Joshua's long day was repeated.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Response:

Thank you.
On our links page, there is a form which you can use to
submit links for inclusion in our enormous links
collection.

The link you have supplied is for Walt Browns' site,
which is very well known to us indeed. It is already
included in the short list of particularly prominent
creationist sites. Also, three of our FAQs have links to
that site, and it shows up many times in the feedback
pages.

While I do
believe that evolution is an incontrovertible fact, I fear
that defenders of evolution are making some logical
failures. You quote this statement by Gould, "It is a fact
that all living forms come from previous living forms." If
you do not see that this is a logical problem, then you
have no sense as a person, much less a scientist. These
kinds of statements lead many intelligent persons to
question the scholarly rigor of biological scientists.
Please be more careful, or please educate me as to how the
above statement is logically sound. The entire philosophy
department at our university agrees that this is a
problematic statement. An email reply would be greatly
appreciated.

Which
university is that? I may know some of them, and would be
interested to know what logical problems arise from a
statement of fact in empirical science. Of course, if there
is a generic problem with fact statements in science
(and on some philosophies there is), then the problem with
evolution is not more problematic than the fact statements
of physics or geology or whatever empirical science you
care to name.

Biologists are not philosophers. Nor are they
physicists. They are biologists, doing biology. This means
that they must attend to the facts and draw the best
conclusions they can, and those conclusions attain the
standing of "fact" when the evidence leads all competent
biologists to the same conclusion, as it does in this case.
Evolution is a fact now. You cannot deny it except through
the use of esoteric philosophical arguments that equally
prove there is no gravity or other persons than one's self.
And it is worth bearing Hume's comments in mind about that
sort of "skepticism":

I am confounded with all these questions, and
begin to fancy myself in the most deplorable condition
imaginable, environed with the deepest darkness, and
utterly depraved of the use of every member and faculty.
Most fortunately it happens that, since reason is incapable
of dispelling these clouds, nature herself suffices to that
purpose, and cures me of this philosophical melancholy and
delirium, either by relaxing this bent of mind, or by some
avocation, and lively impression of my senses, which
obliterate all these chimeras. I dine, play a game of
backgammon, I converse, and am merry with my friends; and
when, after three or four hours amusement, I would return
to these speculations, they appear so cold, and strained,
and ridiculous, that I cannot find in my heart to enter
into them any farther...

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Response:

Is the
problem that you are thinking Gould's statement was
intended to refer to all living forms that have ever
existed? The logical problem in that case is one of
infinite regress.

However, that is not what Gould means. In context, "all
living forms" in this case means "all forms that are now
living". The FAQ in which it may be found is Evolution
is a Fact and a Theory. There is no logical problem in
the statement as given which does not apply equally to
"evolution is an incontrovertible fact", with which you
agree; and the response from our resident philosopher has
considered the philosophical aspects of declaring anything
as a fact.

Actually, I don't want to refute the site at all; but to
encourage it, and applaud Answers in Genesis for presenting
it. Despite my low opinion of the science presented in
Answers in Genesis, this page does show some features which
I would like to see more often from creationists, and which
approaches the kind of style which is seen in real
science.

It recognizes a problem, and states the problem
clearly. It states plainly at the outset that the
visibility of distant stars is a problem for creationists,
and one which they have yet to solve adequately.

It focuses upon the need of creationists to actually
come up with models that actually explain observations;
rather than simply presenting (supposed) defects in
conventional science.

It reviews existing (creationist) models, and plainly
states the difficulties with those models.

It then presents a positive proposal that may resolve
the problems, but cautiously and recognizing that the work
is incomplete.

Finally, the paper makes clear that the main foundation
for their young earth beliefs is not empirical evidence,
but their perspective on the bible.

The solution proposed in this page is the model of Dr
Russell Humphreys. Basically, Humphreys proposes a model in
which the Earth is at or near the center of the universe,
and in the bottom of a deep gravitational well. It is
proposed that relativistic effects result in billion of
years passing in the rest of the universe while only
thousands pass near the center, where the Earth is
located.

Now truth to tell, I am a bit torn. To be completely
honest, I think Humphrey's model is complete codswallop,
easily refuted and inconsistent with all available evidence
and not actually consistent with relativity as he claims at
all. It would be a good subject to tackle at some point in
detail and as a FAQ in the archive. There are also other
defects in the page, which could be a basis for
criticism.

But I want to leave this one, for the time being, as an
exercise for our readers. For anyone interested in this,
give it a try. Do a bit of a literature search to get more
detail, and perhaps also see some of the criticisms that
have been mounted already. How would Dr Humphrey's model be
tested? What observation would falsify his model? Do such
observations already exist?

The positive aspects of the page, which I mention above,
are sufficiently refreshing that I'd rather acknowledge the
good stuff.

I would like
to take issue with you on your article concerning the
bombardier beetle. While you seem to make a very excellent
point concerning the evolutionary process that the beetle
has undergone to get to its present state. My question is,
as is with all the other so-called evolutionary steps,
where is the proof that this actually happened? I have not
seen any credible evidence that backs up what you claim,
such as a complete, or even a partial fossil record that
shows the transitional steps that were taken for this
sophisticated process to develop. From what I have seen and
understood, even by your own serious advocates, is that
this is your main problem! You have no complete evidence
for your position. Only hopeful speculation. If you are
going to call yourself "God" and say you've got the
answers, then show me the money or else stop your crowing.
At best, you offer a hypothesis which takes more faith to
believe in on serious inquiry than does faith in a
intelligent being that created all things.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Response:

Science is
strongly constrained by the availability of evidence. There
is ample evidence for the processes of evolution in action,
and for the relatedness of diverse forms of living
creatures over time, and for a long history of life on
Earth. On the basis of that evidence, evolutionary biology
is now as solidly confirmed as any scientific theory can
be.

And yet, there are many unanswered questions that
remain, particularly with the specifics of different
lineages; and many cases where evidence is not available to
answer certain questions.

The bombardier beetle was raised as an argument by
creationists, as an example of something which is
impossible to arise by evolution. The FAQ Bombardier
Beetles and the Argument of Design responds to this
challenge in two ways. First, we show various simple errors
which have consistently plagued creationist descriptions.
Second (and this is the focus of your feedback) we present
a hypothetical evolutionary development; which is precisely
what Gish and others have said is impossible.

The FAQ is perfectly plain that the stages proposed are
entirely hypothetical, and not based on any actual study of
beetle ancestors. Quoting from the FAQ:

The scenario above is hypothetical; the actual
evolution of bombardier beetles probably did not happen
exactly like that. The steps are presented sequentially for
clarity, but they needn't have occurred in exactly the
order given. For example, the muscles closing off the
reservoir (step 9) could have occurred simultaneously with
any of steps 6-10. Determining the actual sequence of
development would require a great deal more research into
the genetics, comparative anatomy, and palaeontology of
beetles. The scenario does show, however, that the
evolution of a complex structure is far from impossible.
The existence of alternative scenarios only strengthens
that conclusion.

The FAQ thus answers all the criticism which has been
raised. And that is all that the FAQ is intended to do.
There is no pretence to having all the answers, and no
claim to have knowledge of the precise evolutionary stages
involved in the lineages of these beetles.

Your final sentence presents the recurring fundamental
problem of creationism; the notion that a divine creator is
in conflict with or an alternative to the notion that
things arise by natural processes.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Comment:

I had a
question regarding fossilized clams. My father found two,
what seem to be fossilized clams on a country road in rural
Illinois. They are not even an inch in size and we were
wondering, if they are indeed fossilized clams, what were
they doing on a country road in Illinois? Is there such a
thing as fresh water clams? Could they be tested and
studied? I would greatly appreciate any feedback that could
be had. Thank you.

In Illinois,
the roads are often paved with crushed rock quarried from
marine limestone, shale, and other sedimentary rocks
underlying this state. Also, most of the gravel mined in
Illinois contains similar rock eroded from somewhere in
Canada or adjacent parts of the United States. Because
these strata accumulated broad, shallow seas that once
covered Illinois at various times during the Paleozoic Era,
it can be quite common to find the fossils of marine clams
in the crushed stone or gravel used to pave roads in
Illinois.

Web pages that can be used to either identify or find
information about these fossils are:

Finally, there is Geoscience Education Series no. 15, "Guide
for Beginning Fossil Hunters", by Charles Collinson and
published by the Illinois State Geological Survey. This
publication contains useful information about the fossils
found in Illinois.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Comment:

In a forum
discussion online, one of our evolution critics claims that
a recent biology textbook mentions Piltdown Man as proof of
evolution. He claims the "Biology" textbook published by
Addison Welsley alludes to the possibility of a European
origin for Man, and he further maintains that this could
ONLY refer to the Piltdown Man fossil.

We don't have easy access to this textbook, I was
wondering if anyone knew what in the bloody hell he was
talking about, and if there is any weight to his assertion?
Does the book not mention PM as a hoax? Does it consider PM
as evidence?

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Response:

There are
several General Biology textbooks listed on the
Addison-Wesley website catalog. The flagship textbook is,
of course, Biology by Neil Campbell and Jane Reece,
now in the sixth edition. Your debating opponent is almost
certainly referring to the "Multiregional" hypothesis of
human origins, an opposed to the "Out of Africa"
hypothesis. The multiregional hypothesis states that
Homo erectus spread from Africa to various parts of
the world, including Europe, East Asia, and Australia, and
that modern humans evolved more or less simultaneously in
many parts of the world. In contrast, the out-of-Africa
model states that modern humans evolved in Africa and
spread out to the rest of the world. This is mostly a
matter of interpretation of mitochondrial DNA and
Y-chromosome analysis.

Having used this book in classes I have taught (the
Fifth edition is sitting open on my desk as I write this) I
can state with utter certainty that the authors lend no
credence to Piltdown Man. It is not mentioned in the text
of the Fifth edition at all.

It intrigues
me why scholars still hold on to archaic views on evolution
when increasingly the belief in intelligent design is
becoming more acceptable. Are evolutionists afraid of the
alternative, which is knowing there are consequences to our
actions at the end of our lifetime and having to answer for
it, or to someone.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Response:

My objections to the "intelligent design" movement are
not based upon fear of the alternative. My objections are
based upon the abysmal arguments presented by intelligent
design advocates.

Intelligent design arguments are negative arguments
against evolutionary theories. Period. Full stop. They put
no effort whatsoever into making a positive argument for
their alternative conjectures.

If an intelligent design advocate says something
interesting about evolutionary biology, one can expect that
the idea was taken from the legitimate biological
literature. Intelligent design advocates borrow a number of
invalid arguments from the young-earth creationists as
well. Overall, my opinion is that intelligent design
advocates don't do much in the way of contributing ideas to
the discussion which are both novel and valid.

I'll take archaic and empirically tested any day over
modern and empirically vacuous.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Comment:

Hello. I am
relieved to find your wonderful website! My boss, a really
nice man, is an evangelical Christian & confirmed
creationist. We often get into heated debates about social
& scientific issues. In our discussions concerning
evolution I find myself sadly lacking answers to many of
his assertions. Though I know he is way off the mark I do
not have sufficient knowledge or facts to counter him. Is
there someone at your site I can email questions to when I
find myself in a bind?

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Response:

Probably
not. We answer this feedback sporadically. On the other
hand, there is a discussion group where you are fairly
likely to get answers to your questions. That is the talk.origins Usenet newsgroup
(see the welcome FAQ
for how to access talk.origins). And of course, don't
forget to use our search
facility to see if your questions are already answered
on this archive.

And one small piece of advice: You might want to be
careful about getting into heated arguments with your
boss.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Comment:

In the Jan
01 feedback archive you respond to a question about DNA
replication, and mention the enzymes and proteins that copy
DNA during replication. Occasionally mistakes are made and
not corrected, leading to mutations moving onto the next
generation. It seems that if the error checking agents
during replication worked perfectly, and did not allow
errors to pass, mutation would be halted in the organism
and its offspring (I'm neglecting radiation and mutagen
induced mutation for a moment). Thus a population of such
and organism would not be able to adapt to changes in the
environment, and likely die off. On the other hand if the
error correction worked very poorly, so many mutations
would be introduced as to cause the replicated organism to
have a very small chance of survival. Would you say that
evolution has "tuned" the error correction agents to an
acceptable rate of allowed errors (not too many, and not
too few)?

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Response:

Yes, and
different mutation rates are better in different
conditions. Taddei et al showed that high mutation rates
can be advantageous for adapting to a new environment. From
their abstract: "Models of large, asexual, clonal
populations adapting to a new environment show that strong
mutator genes (such as those that increase mutation rates
by 1,000-fold) can accelerate adaptation, even if the
mutator gene remains at a very low frequency (for example,
10[-5])." Oliver et al found that mutator strains of the
bacterium that causes cystic fibrosis were higher in
conditions where its environment was more variable,
consistent with the theory.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Comment:

I am hoping
that at least one regular member is familiar with the
history of science.

In a book I was reading, Gordon Rattray Taylor's "The
Great Evoluton Mystery" (London: Secker & Warburg,
1983, p. 42), Taylor makes the claim that "The idea that
natural selection was the motive force in evolution was not
original to Darwin either: Professor William Lawrence, FRS,
had proposed it in 1822 before Darwin ever set sail."

Can anyone on the list who is familiar with the history
of evolution theory shed light on this. I cannot seem to
find further information.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Response:

Rattray is
wrong. Well's view of selection was conservative, not
evolutionary. There was a tendency to find "precursors" of
Darwin beginning in the late 19th century, in order to
deflate him and the theory of natural selection. I give
references in the
Darwin's Precursors and Influences FAQ.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Response:

The evidence
strongly indicates that the figurines are recent folk art
surruptitiously buried in an existing archeological site.
The most telling feature of them is that they are all
intact, without patina, scratches, or significant breakage.
For an archeological site to yeild 33,000 fragile
2000-year-old artifacts in near-pristine condition is
unheard of. Waldemar Julsrud, who hired workers to excavate
a Chupicauro site, paid the workers a peso apiece for
intact figurines. This could have made sculpting the
figures more economical than discovering and excavating
them. Their subsequent fame could have furthered such
trade.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Comment:

As an
ecologist this has been a wonderful site to use to fill in
gaps in my understanding of Darwinism against creationist
propoganda. However, the new threat, a morph of creationism
and evolution, known as Intelligent Design, should be
addressed more in these pages. They seem to be intent on
debunking Darwin and placing their 'science' in the
schools. Thanks again.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Response:

We're glad
this archive has been useful to you. As for "intelligent
design," we have an entire section of the archive devoted
to this movement. See Talkdesign.org for a
collection of resources on intelligent design.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Comment:

How dare
you. If I may quote for a moment, "There is no reason to
believe that God did not help with evolution". Thats all
very well to say but then with that gripping theory there
is no reason that a bottle of Cola did not help with it
either. Look. its all very well believing or having faith
in a religeon but please don't deny science for an
illogical purpose of gross misleadence.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Response:

You are
quoting the God and
Evolution FAQ; and the quoted extract does not deny
science.

In fact, you have not quite quoted correctly. The actual
statement in the FAQ is

There is no reason to believe that God was not
a guiding force behind evolution.

The difference is significant. The author of the FAQ
believes in a God who is responsible for the existence of
the natural world, and regards science as a means for study
of that world. God (in this view) does not help
things along so much as stand as the ultimate final cause
of the natural world, which we study in science. I don't
share that belief; but this is a metaphysical difference in
viewpoint, and not one we can resolve through scientific
means. The comparison with a coke bottle misses the point,
yet even so you appear to concede the whole point at issue,
which is that evolution does not rule out God's
involvement.

The initial "How dare you" appears to suggest that there
is some ethical lapse involved here. But actually, science
does not impose any required standard of belief (unlike
many of the creationist organisations) and there is no
reasonable basis for presuming to reprimand the FAQ
author.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Comment:

I am a
long-time reader, recently became a poster on the
newsgroup. Just wanted to comment that June 2003 is the
first month in a while in which there was no reference to
Hovind's bogus $250,000 challenge. In fact, there were few
of the highly entertaining (to us readers) but
extraordinarily exasperating (to you guys) totally insane
feedbacks that have made this section a must-read for
myself and (I assume) many others.

Do you suppose this is because people are getting the
message that Hovind, Baugh, and the rest of the bottom of
the barrel really shouldn't be listened to? Or was it just
that no one figured any of these responses were worth
responding to this month?

Anyway, this is a wonderful website, and I can only hope
you'll continue to fight the good fight for a long, long
time. :->

Actually
it's because we responders (feederbackers? feedersback?
feedbacks?) get heartily sick of Hovind "challeneges" each
month, and we don't answer every response anyway (in fact
we answer about 1/4). It's just that we run out of clever
things to say about him. The postcards from the faithful
still roll in each month. This month, though, we have only
had one.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Comment:

I have more
of a question than a comment. My daughter keeps telling me
about a prehistoric giant horse. She seen this source from
the Zoo books. I've searched the sites about a such horse
but it seems that the largest that the horse has evolved is
as big as today's horses. How big exactly was the largest
prehistoric horse? Thanks

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Response:

Horse
evolution has tended to be from small to large, but the
largest horse, according to this
page is the modern heavy horse.

From:

Troy Britain

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Response:

It is
possible that your daughter read something on
perissodactyls (the Order which includes horses, tapirs,
rhinoceroses, and some extinct types like brontotheres),
and mistakenly thought one of the extinct non-horse
perissodactyls was a giant horse.

For example there was the giant (hornless) rhinoceros
Indricotherium which, with an estimated weight of
between 15 and 30 tons, approached sauropod dinosaurs in
size.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Comment:

First of all
I would like to thank you for an excellent site. It has
clearly showed that the creationists are nothing but a joke
(albeit a bad one and, for the quality of education, a
dangerous one).

It seems to me that one of your objectives with the site
is to stop creationists from gaining access to public
schools. That's a great first objective, but why stop
there? Shouldn't the quality of science education be
guaranteed for all, no matter what religion your parents
have (it is after all not the children who chooses to go
religious, private schools)? It seems to me that if you do
not force, by law, the teaching of science in science class
the gap between creationists and the mainstreem science
will continue to grow and many children (perhaps even
against their own wills) will be ignorant of one of the
greatest discoveries in human history!

This would be no different than private schools
(sponsored by other organistaions unafraid to teach lies)
refusing to teach about the holocaust in history
classes!

Having said this, I hope I haven't been to offensive and
agressive but I do have rather strong feelings about the
subject.

(I hope the fact that English isn't my first language
has been too obvious)

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Response:

In the 1925
case of Pierce v. Society of Sisters, the Supreme Court
held that parents have the constitutional right to send
their children to parochial schools. The Court did not,
however, question the state's power to set minimum
educational standards:

No question is raised concerning the power of
the state reasonably to regulate all schools, to inspect,
supervise and examine them, their teachers and pupils; to
require that all children of proper age attend some school,
that teachers shall be of good moral character and
patriotic disposition, that certain studies plainly
essential to good citizenship must be taught, and that
nothing be taught which is manifestly inimical to the
public welfare.

The problem, of course, is twofold: (1) adopting proper
standards for parochial schools and (2) enforcing those
standards. Given the influx of creationists onto state
boards of education, it's difficult for this problem to be
addressed. Citizens must take it upon themselves to review
all of their ballot choices and their governor's
appointments carefully.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Comment:

Hi guys.
I've e mailed you several times with questions and being
the self convinced cowards you are you dont have the balls
to approach them, so I wont bother treating you with
respect anymore. The reason I am sending this is because a
web page you guys might want to read if you want to dig
your heads from your butts long enough to learn something
truthful is The Center for Scientific Creationism and
material by a man named Walt Brown. Mister Brown, who has
some impressive credentials, real ones, addresses the very
same questions I sent you. Pretty shameful when you guys,
who think you ae the sultans of real knowledge, and at
least a dozen message boards I've inquired into cant answer
simple questions, yet you treat Christian inquiries with a
totally detatched yawn, as if it's old news to you.

The only people easier to debate and win against are
Anti Gun fanatics, who, like you people, have lies, half
truths, inventions, and basic game tactics rather than
reality on their side. One of my favorite questions for
atheists is how to explain the so called evolution of
sexual reporduction and let us throw in the higher
mentality of the human over the animal,which in itself is
evidential of the higher potential mentioned in the
bible.

The only people who even attempted to address those two
issues were the hotheaded and acidic guys in Christianity:
Bogus Beyond Belief, which I'm sure you are firmiliar with.
When one of their regulars dealt with me months ago on
those issues, all he could produce were insults and
stammering. Yet like you guys, he felt he had all the
answers.

Best regards. You all are so impressive. My greatest
pity is for the young people who read your site and
actually think you know what you're talking about. You can
print my name and e mail. I've never been afraid to stand
by my convictions. Gene

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Response:

I'm sorry, but Walt Brown is a crackpot and a kook who
is so far beyond the pale, he isn't even particularly
interesting. He actually has rather poor credentials: his
degree is in mechanical engineering, which has virtually no
relevance to evolutionary biology. He is frequently brought
up here in feedback by people who make this same kind of
juvenile challenge every time, and I'm afraid the only
response we can make anymore is one of utter, all-consuming
boredom.

If you are honestly interested in getting a scientific
response from the talk.origins crew, try writing a
specific question about a specific issue.
Lame claims of your many triumphs accompanied by fawning
adulation of someone who is little more than a joke is not
the way to impress us.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Comment:

I just had a
question really. I was wondering why couldn't it be
possible that the evolution theory and God's theory were
both correct. I do not say this to sound racist, but God
could have created the European humans and those from
Africa evolved. Remembering the saying "white men can't
jump" notice how Black people have an extra bone in their
foot like the apes. Could it be that we come from two
different worlds in more than one sense?

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Response:

Sorry, but
your comment is blatantly racist, and wrong, to boot. All
the races of Homo sapiens are completely identical
anatomically, except for minor cosmetic details. The
differences- genetic and anatomic- between "Europeans" and
"Africans" are less then those observed between different
Europeans. There is no extra bone in any race of humans.
Also, the bones in a human foot are exactly the same as
those in the foot of a gorilla- or a dog, or a shrew, or a
dolphin, for that matter (or the homologous limb). To imply
that any humans are somehow totally distinct from other
humans is balderdash.

Second, all evidence- fossil and genetic- points to an
African origin for the human species. No other continent
has fossils as old as Africa (and people have looked!) and
we see from genetic data that all humans are derived from
an original set of African ancestors.

To answer your final question, most biologists believe
that a deity somehow guided evolution. This is not part of
evolutionary theory, but that does not mean it is an
invalid aspect of human culture. Evolutionary biology has
nothing to say about whether god decided how evolution
should proceed.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Response:

In fact, the
Some More Observed
Speciation Events FAQ contains at least two examples of
observed mammal speciation, that of the Faeroe Island house
mouse, and that of house mice in northern Italy (see Nature, vol. 257,
p. 26). It is far easier to observe speciation in other
plants and animals that have shorter times between
generations.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Comment:

Congratulation on the remarkable patience you show in
replying to objections that show ignorance, bigotry and
unwillingness to be persuaded no matter what. You
painstakingly attempt at clarifying the confusion that
reigns mostly unchallenged in some people's minds. You do a
great job. I am a graduate student in History and
Philosophy of Science, and I just finished teaching a
college class on Darwinism and its critics. I wish I had
found your bulletin board earlier. It is extremely
informative, and I will definitely recommend it to my
students and friends.

I was
checking out the feedback from 1996, and I came across this
item:

"An extremely useful site which have given creationists
trouble whenever discussing with them. However, it would be
very nice if you put the titles/credentials/education of
your contributors. Just in case a creationist claims that
"talk.origins is made up of people with suspicious
credentials..." Greetings from the midnight sun and a
student of rocks and dead animals (have been dead very
long...)

Karsten in Norway

Response from the editor:

The talk.origins archive takes the position that the
credentials of the author are irrelevant to the quality of
the author's argument. For example, a number of
creationists have outstanding credentials, but their
arguments against evolution or the antiquity of the earth
are generally poor. So the talk.origins archive neither
lists nor requests the credentials of its articles'
authors."

Your response to Karsten seems radically different from
the present position of talk/origins contributors on the
topic of credentials, and I was wondering when and why that
position "evolved" to what it is now. And don't say
millions of years ago. :)

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Response:

The position
of the archive remains as stated above.

Individual FAQ authors usually include an email address,
and a couple of them also include some qualifications. This
is entirely up to the author; it makes no difference as far
as the archive or its review process is concerned. Most
authors seem to provide a name and email address, and leave
it at that.

Response

From:

Wesley R. Elsberry

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Response:

I think the reader is referring to the Archive's pages
on suspicious credentials of certain creationists. If I'm
reading this right, the reader's argument goes like this:
If the credentials of the author of an argument are
irrelevant to the quality of the argument, then why does
the Archive criticize the phony credentials of some
antievolutionists? A moment's thought will resolve this
issue.

The TalkOrigins Archive hosts those pages about
suspicious credentials of certain creationists precisely
because they make an issue of being called "Dr." and
thereby wrapping themselves in a mantle of phony
intellectual authority when making antievolution
pronouncements. There is no double standard being applied
here, for our FAQ authors generally do not make an issue of
their own credentials in putting their arguments forward.
Where our FAQ authors do note the acquisition of a Ph.D.
degree, it is because they earned it at an accredited
institution of higher learning.

The Archive also has not held back on showing the
content of the various arguments made by those
antievolutionists with suspicious credentials to be rather
poor in quality. A person with suspicious credentials could
be making perfectly good arguments, but that doesn't appear
to apply to the instances here.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Comment:

Firstly,
excellent website! Secondly, I was wondering if you knew of
any source or site that addresses the (I'm kinda cringing
as I write this) 'aquatic ape theory', as in, sheds some
definitive light on the matter. Please note, I am not a
proponent and only recently became aware such a theory
existed. The websites Ive found so far mostly expound on
the details of the theory but I've found very little in the
way of refutation. Has anyone taken this theory to task?
Personally I find the idea of early hominids bobbing about
in the shallows for millennia to be a bit silly, okay, very
silly, but I was curious what you think of the matter.
Thanks for not laughing :)

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Response:

We don't
address this directly, but we have a selection of links
available in the
Miscellaneous web sites page; four links supportive of
the model, and one which refutes it. The position of the
talkorigins archive may be safely inferred from the brief
editorial comment given with the last link.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Comment:

You people
need to wake up before it is too late. I always thought
that scientists were supposed to be smart. What you claim
to be proof of evolution is not what you make it out to be.
Before you send me to the 29 proofs page (Been there done
that)read it your self. There is not one single shred of
evidence that a single species change from one species to
another. Oh there has been adaptation. A perfect example is
the white moth (I believe England) that turned black
because of it's enviroment. Funny thing is when the
enviroment changed back so did the moth. Now the moth was a
moth when it was white, when it was black and get this it
was still a moth when it was white again. Another of your
proofs was the corn that changed color, corn before still
corn after where is the species change.

If evolution where true then one of the following would
have to be true if we evolved from apes. The new form would
replace the old or we would have various variants in
between. We do not though do we? We have apes and we have
man. Nothing in between.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view author contact information.

Response:

As a matter
of fact, the page on 29+
Evidences for Macroevolution has nothing about peppered
moths or coloured corn; it is exclusively about evidence
for species changing into other species; macroevolution and
common descent. It does not appear that you read the page
at all. Your comments ignore all the evidence in that FAQ
for common descent, and deals rather with examples of the
processes of change in action.

If you want to see species between apes and man, you can
have a look at the Fossil
Hominids FAQ. Check out especially the Hominid
Species page, which lists many species intermediate in
form between modern humans and our ape-like ancestors.